Stumping for Clinton, Steinem Says McCain's P.O.W. Cred Is Overrated

[RamboLiberal]

Source: New York Observer

AUSTIN, Texas—Feminist icon Gloria Steinem took to the stump on Hillary Clinton’s behalf here last night and quickly proved that she has lost none of her taste for provocation.

From the stage, the 73-year-old seemed to denigrate the importance of John McCain’s time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. In an interview with the Observer afterward, she suggested that Barack Obama benefits—and Clinton suffers—because Americans view racism more seriously than sexism.

-----

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. , ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”

-----

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign sends over the following statement from Howard Wolfson: "Senator Clinton has repeatedly praised Senator McCain's courage and service to our country. These comments certainly do not represent her thinking in any way. Senator Clinton intends to have a respectful debate with Senator McCain on the issues."

Read more: http://www.observer.com/2008/stumping-clinton-steinem-says-mccains-p-o-w-cred-overrated

---

Ooops. Is that "denounce and reject" Howard?

And to be fair, I think Steinem makes some valid points.

[Mojambo]

1. I'm not thrilled with any attempt by either campaign to attack McCain's military service. n/t

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

2. I like Gloria Steinem, but I think this comment was uncalled for.

[Mojambo]

6. My problem was more with her lighthearted, almost joking tone

There should never, EVER be chuckling when people are talking about McCain's imprisonment and torture.

EVER.

[EFerrari]

39. At least she wasn't signing at the time. n/t

[Richardo]

16. I agree.

Anyone who puts on a uniform and goes into combat should get a free ride on their military service.

[karynnj]

43. No one is saying that - he should be questioned on many things - put not the years he was a POW

We can attack his positions on foreign and domestic issues, his lack of ethics, his dishonesty, or his temper, when it shows.

Being a POW doesn't make up for later transgressions, but it is not something to diminish. Do you think it was fair in 2004, that people who disagreed with Senator Kerry's beliefs in 2004 or in 1971, lied about his genuine heroism in Vietnam? (It is actually ironic that Kerry's heroism would have fit the more simplistic Republican idea of a war hero - a strong, intelligent leader creatively saving his men than McCain's quieter heroism of helping keep others together in the POW prison.)

[Richardo]

45. I agree with that too - anything AFTER his military service is open for discussion

And Kerry is precisely the reason I think military service should be off limits - if it applies to Democrats, it applies to Republicans as well.

[TooBigaTent]

3. It depends on the meaning of hero. It used to mean bravery and heroic action

like capturing a castle or slaying a dragon or defending a fort.

Somehow, losing a battle gets you that designation now, especially if it helps a political campaign.

[ellenfl]

13. i totally agree.

i also agree with gs and have said the same thing for a while now. he had a less than exemplary military career before being shot down. furthermore, since he was a pilot, what does he know about running a ground war?

which is worse . . . denying he is a hero or letting him tout his experience so he can keep us in an unjust war?

ellen fl

[soleft]

4. Valid but not politically savvy

This is the last thing Clinton needs two days before the primaries. And I LOVE Gloria Steinem.

[tularetom]

5. Let me get this straight - she can trash Obama without apology

but when somebody trashes McCain on her behalf she has howard wolfson grovel to him. If her General Election campaign is going to be a McCain love fest now is the time to find out about it.

She will not stand up to the McCain or the repukelican party. They will rip her a new asshole but she'll try to kiss up. It's what bill Clinton did for 8 years (and has been doing for the past 7).

[Upton]

7. I'm no fan of McCain but how low can Steinhem go?

She ought to be ashamed.

[Skittles]

10. IT IS DISGUSTING

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RamboLiberal]

11. If there's video of this and audience is laughing

that is not going to look good.

Clinton's had 2 people now who've screwed up in their endorsements this week after the Russert interogation of Obama over Farakhan.

[jody]

8. There are several swift boat groups mad enough to attack McCain with a vengeance. The following is

just one such accusation that may be used against McCain, found with goggle -- mccain hanoi pow.

HOW THE CLINTONS WILL DESTROY JOHN MCCAIN

To much to post and the statements may or may not be true.

The one link above does make interesting speculation. :tinfoilhat:

[RamboLiberal]

9. This would backfire on the Clintons - even if an outside group

used. His military service and POW status is an untouchable in this campaign.

[jody]

12. Didn't mean that Clinton would use it. I meant there are groups who wish to attack McCain. nt

[ellenfl]

20. why untouchable? eom

[RamboLiberal]

26. See my reply below n/t

And you have the MSM who are good buddies with him. Whoever would try to float this would be trashed as would Dem candidate by association.

[atreides1]

35. McCain is all about standing on his record!

That record should include any facts pertaining to his military service, as well as his association with Charles Keating, or are we supposed to just look at the warm and fuzzy parts of the senator's record.

[ellenfl]

42. i totally agree. if he is going to allow others to call him a hero,

then he must be ready to back that up with facts. i'm really getting a little tired of the uber-patriotism that has been pushed on us by this admin . . . especially after reading all about german hyped nationalism when i was in high school. that's what hitler used to gather his support you know, and that is what dubya has also been using to make us go along with his fascist regime.

no one really knows what mccain did while in the hanoi hilton . . . except mccain. if he is such a hero, please, tell us what he did to make him a hero . . . and therefore untouchable. and please don't say he got shot down. getting captured does not, in and of itself, make one a hero.

don't get me wrong, i have a great deal of respect for senator mccain. however, i see that the military records of republicans seem to be off limits but not those of dems? at least we want to see the truth in the records, not swift boat lies.

ellen fl

[creeksneakers2]

14. I don't believe a word of it.

Such unreliable information shouldn't be passed along. McCain's right wing enemies have run some pretty disgusting attacks on McCain and I don't want anything like that to get started on the left. It will surely backfire.

I don't like McCain and I don't like defending him but some of the stuff that is said about him is pure trash that comes from a group of people low enough to create a hoax that POWs are alive and still being kept in Vietnam and then using the hoax to defraud POW families.

[jody]

23. You could be correct. n/t

[bluestateguy]

15. McCain's war record is on the table

what really happened when he was in captivity? What information did he serve up? Why was he such a lousy student at the Naval Academy? Why did he put the kibosh on the investigation of our POW's/MIA's in the mid-1990's.

[RamboLiberal]

17. IMHO it's off the table

like Kerry's should've been in 2004. So cause Repukes do this so do we? Give me an f'in break.

On his captivity - bet most of us would've been spilling our guts if someone did to us what they did to him. He did what he had to do and he refused when offered the possible chance to go home early!

There's been a helluva lot of successful military people who were not outstanding students in the academies!

As to the investigation of POW's/MIA's in the 90's. He's a realist. There's little chance that there are any POWs left alive in Vietnam! Yeah I know the conspiracy theories!

Trying to smear McCain and having it linked to a Dem candidate or the party is one sure way to lose the election! It works for Repukes but it won't work for us.

[Upton]

19. Exactly right

you don't have to agree with McCain on the issues, but he deserves our respect. Something Obama brings up regularly.

[AndyTiedye]

25. Yeah, We Gotta Make Nice. It Has Worked So Well for Us in the Last Couple of Presidential Elections

McCain can be as nasty as he wants, but we gotta play nice. Them's tha rules, according to your friendly MSM.

[creeksneakers2]

31. The POW/MIA stuff was all a hoax n/t

[karynnj]

51. He didn't put the kibosh on the POW/MIA investigation

The committee went through mountains of 1970 era documents to assess the discrepancies between the number of MIA/POW the US said there were and the number released. The committee interrogated people including Kissinger and even sent interrogatories to former President Nixon. (There is in fact a fascinating view of that from the other side in Monica Crowley's book on Nixon's later years. He was infuriated at having to answer them and had to be persuaded by advisers to actually answer them to avoid being called before the committee. (part of his anger was that he still hated the committee's chair - Kerry.)

That discrepancy plus several cons who were using people's loss to get money "to investigate" was what led to the story. The facts though are that both percentage wise and in actual numbers there are far fewer people whose fates are unknown than in Korea or WWII. The committee consisted of all the Vietnam Vets in the Senate - except Gore ( likely for the same reason he didn't run for President in 1992) The ranking member was Senator Smith of NH, who believed the claims initially. Kerry opted to give Smith half the staff the committee had. Kerry's goal was a report that every member of the committee would approve - which seemed completely impossible at the beginning.

The first step was to go through the 1970s stuff - and part of the explanation was that unless a body existed, it was normal to designate a soldier as MIA or even POW - partly to keep the KIA down. They also looked through all the claims and the people making them . Many were discredited. In fact, the Newsweek cover photo of three supposed POWs was found to not be a picture of Americans or from Vietnam. They mapped where the reports of sightings were to see how they clustered.

The committee made over 14 trips to Vietnam - at least one of was partially captured in a long (I think about 3 hours) C-SPAN tape. Their goals were to test how cooperative the local officials would be and to look at areas where there were clusters reported. Kerry surprised McCain (per his book) with being able to negotiate visiting places without warning and getting into anyplace that they wanted. The CSPAN show was interesting as it showed both what a huge task this was and some of their ways of trying to get a handle on it. They made extensive use of helicopters, they surprised officials by coming before or long after they said they would and they wandered around talking to people in villages. (One interesting thing Kerry did was to use the huge interest the kids had in who these strangers were - in a very non- threatening way he was able to find that many had never seen an American before. He ended up with the kids correcting his Vietnamese pronounciation of name of water buffalo(?) and following him around the town. (This triggered one memory I had - when we flew El Al to Israel, we had a ticket that included Eqypt too and we were taking some Brita filters to friends living there. They questioned our 3 elementary school age kids. The first question was if they knew Hebrew - when the 8 year old said yes, they switched to Hebrew only to have her say that she only knew thinks like "Baruck ata ...." They then categorized us easily a family with 3 kids in Hebrew school. That ended both our and their questioning) The Senators trips set up more detailed investigations of the area by investigators working for the committee.

They found no signs that there were any POWs being held. There were some Americans held for other things - such as drugs etc - in Vietnamese prisons. The report made that conclusion that there was no evidence that they could find of POWs being held. Kerry also worked with the governments in that area - as part of his SFRC work- to more actively look for and repatriate American remains. (remember Dean's family getting his brother's remains back.)

This story is fed by two types of people con men who have manipulated people for decades - some of which have been exposed and people who believe this because of them. In 2004, Senator Smith, who had reasons to dislike Bush - actually endorsed Kerry in one of the oddest endorsements ever. He praised Kerry's character and abilities very highly mentioning their work together, but also said they always voted against each other, but that with a Republican Senate and House the liberal Kerry could not do much harm! He then made a case that he was fit to be CIC. What is clear is that he felt the committee made a good faith effort - even if he is unwilling to completely rule out that somewhere there could possibly be some POWs somewhere. (This does not diminish the effort made - it is impossible to proof a negative.)

So - this libel hits not just McCain but Kerry. Kerry took on this assignment, even though his entire staff and all his advisers thought it was a no win situation and because reliving Vietnam was clearly going to be painful for him. He took it for the veterans and put enormous energy into it. I can not see McCain having gone through what he did, covering for Nixon, if he had left POWs in Vietnam for over 20 years - and I see even less likelihood that Kerry would.

[Middle finga]

18. Calling Barack a terrorist infiltrator is worse IMO

[JeanGrey]

21. Well Hello? Gloria, I don't happen to agree with you.

I am obviously not a McCain supporter but this is too much.

[Diane R]

22. As an original 1970's feminist, and admirer of Steinem, this disgusts me. She wasn't touched by war

[Faygo Kid]

24. Sad. This doesn't help any Dems.

I spent time with her in 1989, and she was at her best. Of course, that was a long time ago, and she was in her early 50s.

God bless Gloria Steinem, but time is cruel to us all.

[Tresalisa]

27. Bad move, Ms. Steinem.

Go after McCain for his politics, but leave his time as a POW alone. It wasn't right when Senator John Kerry's service in Vietnam was used to attack him, and it's not right to use Senator John McCain's service to attack him.

[atreides1]

36. Not a bad move.

"Go after McCain for his politics"

Well unfortunately his time in the military and as a POW is what he uses to point out his expertise in military operations.

He likes to talk about his record, then it has to cover everything that will show that he has the experience to be the president.

McCain seems to enjoy attacking the records of Senators Clinton and Obama, then he should be prepared to have his record scrutinized as well.

[murray hill farm]

28. Tasteless, perhaps, but

She is correct. Most certainly John McCain's stoic actions and experiences in time of war are above and beyond qualifications as an american hero. no one would question that..ever....who could, really...and we all respect him for what he did and what he endured. BUT, really now....it does not qualify him in any way to be president...in any way.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

29. Below the belt...just as it was with Kerry.

These men SERVED their country...unlike AWOL and The Dick.

[karynnj]

52. Not to mention - if HRC is the candidate and ANYONE plays this card

I am pretty sure we will get a replay of the 1992 Clinton draft stories where he manipulated his way out.

Yeah I know he's not running and I know that he was not a hypocrite - he was against the was. (and it was Kerry who was a top surrogate defending him in 1992 and making the plea that we needed to not tear open the rift on Vietnam)

[w13rd0]

30. While I agree...

...that being a POW does not qualify one as a hero or as fit for the office of the Presidency, I do think we should ask, given McCains recent change of heart on the topic, just what torture techniques he would consider "off the table". I'm not looking to attack his military service, it neither makes me more, or less likely, to vote for him, which is exactly a 0% chance in hell. But I see no reason, given the behavior of the GOP in 2004, that if he chooses to make his whole campaign about his having been in the service, and a captive, then there's no reason we should tiptoe around the topics that cross there.

The GOP will attempt to make this election cycle all about fear and war, and if we aren't willing to take him on, and then reframe the debate to topics of OUR choosing, it will not help us.

His having been a pilot, his unwavering support for the Idiot Kings military choices, his apparent hunger for more and bigger wars, these ARE an issue in this campaign. Having been in war, having been a captive, I would expect him to be more capable on discussions of military engagements, diplomacy, the horrors of war, and the dangers of unnecessary war and hostile, pre-emptive aggression. Apparently these aren't the lessons he learned.

[NaturalHigh]

32. Those are some pretty crappy comments by Steinem.

[undeterred]

33. She is no expert outside of anything but feminism.

[Maeve]

34. She's certainly no expert on political strategy!

I can't think of a much better way to get the wingnuts to support McCain than this! It will even turn off some moderates--remind people that the Vietnam War was a generation or more ago, but don't disparage the POWs.

[undeterred]

37. She came to a Madison event and got rid of one of the sponsors

which does medical research using animals. And she publicly disparaged them at the event. She may as well have disparaged all of NIH. Clearly she doesn't have a clue what medical research, including cures for breast cancer, is based upon. It made her look foolish and naive. Its like she lashes out in every direction. It erodes the respect she has built up for herself.

[Ordr]

38. Vile.

Absolutely vile. Whether you like him politically or not, he was a P.O.W. who was brutalized for years because of his loyalty to this country. Whatever Steinem has personally endured during her life pales in comparison to the abject savagery he had forced upon him. Giving these remarks not only a platform but credence is why our Democratic party is dying. Perhaps these fringe members of our party fail to remember that we also have veterans and P.O.W.s supporting us. These men and women, however, have strong feelings of solidarity and sympathy for their own, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they may be on. Loudmouth dreck like this should be immediately condemned by Clinton if she has any desire to stop the ongoing drop in her popularity.

[karynnj]

40. I DON'T think she made good points

She transforms the standard, justifiable feminist argument that positives in men become negatives in women. (for example, a man is labeled "assertive", a word with only positive connotations, while a woman is "aggressive", a word with more negative than positive connotations.) But here, it doesn't work.

Her comments on sexism vs racism don't seem to be backed up - nor does she explain why HRC was as high as 45% in 2005 and 2006 with a large pool of candidates. Her numbers fell as negative actions of the Clintons happened. It is not sexism when Obama's numbers went up as people learned more about him and hers went down either because people found a better alternative or disliked what they saw the Clintons doing. That initial 45% is higher than you usually see except for incumbents or VPs of 2 term Presidents. It also was not based on her leading any important fights in the Senate.

The comments on McCain's POW years are sick and it is disgusting that the crowd applauded her. In the first place, McCain was asked despicable questions by the RW lunatics - similar in nature to the questions she says "Joan" would have been asked.

What bothers me is feminist not seeing that voting for a woman because she is a woman is as bad as voting against a woman because she is a woman. We need the best President we can get - not a check mark next to a box saying "has elected a woman head of state".

[bean fidhleir]

41. Whether it's appropriate to question McCain's conduct as a POW is one thing

But declaring his experience to be irrelevant to his qualification to be president seems spot on, to me.

There are many people who''ve been POWs. What about that experience makes them qualified for ANY public office?

How about POWs who committed crimes against humanity in their military role? What was McCain doing over there? We weren't repelling an invasion - it was a civil war. What right did we have to mix in?

How about political prisoners in the US? E.g., dopers, non-Whites imprisoned for being uppity, etc. Are they more or less qualified than someone like McCain?

[Ordr]

44. Well,

But declaring his experience to be irrelevant to his qualification to be president seems spot on, to me.
Agreed.

There are many people who''ve been POWs. What about that experience makes them qualified for ANY public office?
I think it depends on their conduct while being imprisoned (and future political aspirations, of course :) )

How about POWs who committed crimes against humanity in their military role? What was McCain doing over there? We weren't repelling an invasion - it was a civil war. What right did we have to mix in?
You have to be a bit careful there. People who are in the military generally (no, not always) are there because they are fighting for what they believe is right. We all know how war propaganda works to either recruit new soldiers or renew vigor in those already fighting. Unless there are true war-crimes committed by individuals (his mission was not a war-crime), you cannot fault a soldier for his/her actions while under orders.

How about political prisoners in the US? E.g., dopers, non-Whites imprisoned for being uppity, etc. Are they more or less qualified than someone like McCain?
Our modus operandi as a country is not to torture our prisoners. Yes, it happens, but it is rare and met with massive condemnation, media coverage, and criminal charges (still pending for Bush and Co., I know).

[bean fidhleir]

49. I still don't understand, I'm afraid

"I think it depends on their conduct while being imprisoned"

Why? What possible relevance could it have, unless we expect the officeholder to have to resist the demands of people who have him imprisoned? Would someone who behaves well while falsely imprisoned for crime be considered similarly qualified?

"Unless there are true war-crimes committed by individuals (his mission was not a war-crime), you cannot fault a soldier for his/her actions while under orders."

Why wasn't his mission a war crime --or more exactly a crime against peace? There was no state of war declared by Congress, and the conflict was a civil war (both sides were native VNese). What made our mixing in legitimate? I don't say "legal" - the actions of the Nazis were "legal", but nevertheless judged not legitimate. What made our mixing in legitimate?

"Our modus operandi as a country is not to torture our prisoners. Yes, it happens, but it is rare and met with massive condemnation, media coverage, and criminal charges (still pending for Bush and Co., I know)."

Again, I don't really understand why that's relevant. Is being tortured while imprisoned for something he actually did (kill people) worse than being falsely accused, convicted, and kept in a dangerous prison for 10-20 years because of, e.g., racism? In what way does the torture improve McCain's suitability for office that being railroaded doesn't?

That's my problem: it doesn't seem to me as though people are thinking straight.

[Ordr]

56. "it doesn't seem to me as though people are thinking straight"

I think that statement pretty much sums up the entire political process :).

Back on the topics at hand, though, I certainly do see where you are coming from and I respect your viewpoint regarding a "crime against peace" and the legitimacy of our being there in the first place. My only defense to that (since I also agree that we shouldn't have been there or really ANYWHERE without a constitutionally and democratically-sound decision to go to war) is if we had to be there anyway, one's conduct while there should play a role.

The torture itself doesn't necessarily improve his suitability but it does show his (perhaps expired) notion that his own personal well-being was less important than the well-being of his military brethren and his country. McCain has lots of things that one can attack him over. I, personally, just don't consider this to be one of them, especially coming from Steinem.

(Edit: grammar isn't my friend before noon)

[karynnj]

53. There was a draft then

Are you saying that he should have used his connections to avoid it like Bush and Cheney did?

[bean fidhleir]

57. I'm not getting how your question relates to my comment

Could you connect the dots for me?

[fascisthunter]

46. Actually... she's right

[Ordr]

47. "Actually... she's right"

Please elaborate. I respectfully and vehemently disagree.

[fascisthunter]

48. McCain's untouchability regarding his former POW Status

was flushed down the toilet bowl when he changed his stance on torture.

[Ordr]

50. untouchability

While I do agree that he should be held strongly accountable for his stance change, I don't believe it diminishes the P.O.W. status. What it does diminish, however, is the legitimacy of his other positions; essentially placing the oh-so-eloquent "flip-flopper" label on him.

[electron_blue]

54. She makes many valid points. About the POW ordeal, no I wouldn't say

being a POW and surviving that automatically qualifies you for President. I think it's a huge part of his life and surviving it gives him heft to his argument that he has a better understanding of the realities of war than either Obama or Clinton. It's not everything a President needs, of course. None of the candidates are 100% ideal. They each play their strengths.

Knowing what McCain went through I thought I knew what his principles were regarding torture and captive's rights. I even liked him briefly when he stood up against Bush about torture. I was surprised when he changed and then supported Bush on torture. Not to mention all the concessions against the constitution that he's supported (ie Patriot Act). This really cheapened the admiration I had for McCain regarding his supposed patriotic, do the right thing, principles. And to be clear, I've never been a huge fan of him, but I at least thought he might be someone who really cared about the constitution and civil rights (esp of soldiers, combatants, whatever you want to call them) on the Republican side. Nope.

[zanne]

55. As much as I admire Gloria Steinem...

That was a big boo-boo and did nothing to help Hillary's campaign.